I don't know why everyone's that bothered as he's only a poor man's Darrell Goulding according to my pal who's a Wigan fan.

Absolutely and no club is better placed to prosper under such circumstances than Leeds at present.

JP has written an article in which he names Watkins as a player who may be off to the NRL.

rlhttps://loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_602-jamie-peacock-column:-time-for-super-league-to-take-action.htmlrl

Some posters may be happy that Leeds will be well-placed to be the best side in an U-23s NRL feeder league, but the situation is very problematic for British RL as a whole.

Ignoring the Feeder league rhetorick why is "the suituation" problematic and what is the situation?

The (potential) situation is losing players like Tomkins and Watkins, and being told that it's not a big problem because we can invest in youth (which we should be doing anyway) and these players can take the spots with no difference in product.

If those players turn out to be as good as the players they're replacing, then they would also leave.

Without your best players, or with players you've invested in training (clubs) and supporting (fans) leaving, you have a competition less attractive to TV and sponsors, less able to compete financially, less able to offer salaries to ward off the NRL or RU, and vulnerable to a downward spiral.

I shouldn't have said that it's exactly "the situation" as of now, but it does have the potential to get that way.

But players will always leave and they always have. Calderwood left and Ryan Hall emerged. Harris left and Danny McGuire emerged. Chev Walker left and Kallum Watkins emerged.

The talent drain to union was massively overblown and didn't kill us. I think the drain to the NRL will be the same but, obviously, with the added benefit that these players will still be avaiable to our international game and, maybe even benefit it.

I don't see it as problematic yet. What would be problematic IMO is if the game over-reacted and, in the present climate, increased the salary cap to a level that irresponsible clubs can't afford. Another Bulls scenario like last year would be problematic.

Yup.

There's a tipping point where it stops being knee jerky and becomes pro-active response to a real problem. But I don't think we're anywhere near it yet.

Nobody has actually gone yet.

People seem to assume that everyone would automatically accept a move to Australia for more money. Speaking as somebody who has twice declined the chance to do the same in my career, I think that's a flawed assumption.

Just as with the 'drain' to Union, there really aren't that many SL players likely to be targeted by NRL sides. Forwards will be the first preference in the short-term, as English players have a track record of success (make no mistake, most NRL clubs will be scouting SL to see if there's another Sam Burgess coming through the ranks). Tomkins and Watkins may well be targeted because they are clearly special players with a lot of potential (as well as flaws which will need to get fixed).

Hall would be a possible target, and a few others (Briscoe maybe?), but I suspect that NRL clubs won't take big financial gambles on many backs at all, and that the pots of gold just don't exist as they have for players moving to RU.

What's caused SL more problems is the opposite issue - lack of players from the NRL to SL. The drying up of the Welsh RU/junior English RU pipeline had an immediate impact on GB's back division. Similarly we're now seeing some clubs for the first time in 30 years not being able to pad out their squad with NRL hacks. This is actually something that needed to happen IMO, but it was always going to have a short-term impact.

It's clear is that some clubs were well-placed to react and to focus on junior development, and others were left hopelessly flat-footed. What's needed is all clubs to get their act together, but it will take a few years before we consistently see quality young players coming through at all clubs. As a result I'd argue that it will be several years before we really know how many clubs are sustainable in a SL basically dependent on developing its own players.

Gareth would you say SL is better or a worse competition without the likes of Sam Burgess and James Graham? add to that a sprinkling of real top Aussies e.g. Jamie Lyon, Buderus, Hoffman etc and you have a devalued competition.

If you are saying it doesn't matter if the likes of Watkins - the only top notch centre to come through the Leeds Academy system in the last 15 years - go to Aus along with many of the 'marquee' players because it gives opportunities to young players I cannot agree.

Leeds is an interesting club - they encourage youth development but they also have the - Wigan apart - the largest catchment area of the northern clubs and have an advantage of scale. You can hardly say the likes of Castleford/Wakefield/Widnes etc are competing for junior talent on an even playing field. Longer term this will lead to a league dominated by Leeds and Wigan, clubs that have access to the best young talent.

I'm not sure if I can agree with the whole catchment area thing as both of our most exciting and coveted backs, in Watkins and Hardaker were brought in from outside the Leeds catchment area.
I think it's more to do with talent scouts and their persuasive abilities.

Rugby League in this country has never been as much on it's knees in terms of spending power in relation to it's competition (NRL, Union, Australian rules).

I don't think you can compare previous periods in time to now.

Not sure I agree about catchment area. We've had a couple of juniors at Outlaws picked up by Wakefield. Players are there if you look hard enough. Wakefield, and indeed Sheffield are doing good work by tapping into the relatively unknown midlands area which is well set up in terms f juniors

Yes, pretty much.

Anyone who can remember as far back as the winter of 1999/2000 may recall we had two mergers in SL between Hull/Gateshead and Huddersfield/Sheffield which resulted in what exactly? Gateshead and Sheffield were sacrificed then allowed to rejoin at the bottom and start again as individual entities so what was the point in merging other than reducing the size of SL from 14 to 12?

As I said earlier I don't see the need for mergers now that we have licenses. The RFL need to take a strategic approach, licenses should go to the teams the RFL consider best placed to carry the game forward in each area and not allow duplication. Having say a Castleford and Wakefield in SL only weakens both as they fight over the junior development and the the local commercial budgets.

Leeds fans probably wont ever be affected directly by the specter of mergers and as such I don't really know how I would feel if I were a follower of a 'loser' in such a deal.

Tvoc, Hull/Gateshead and Huddersfield/Sheffield can hardly be examples of mergers not working. They were never a merger in anything but name. They were purely a means to the franchises which you advocate now. The tems you mentioned are way apart, and the final club were based at the same home as one of them.

A true merger would have two or more local clubs and would be inclusive of the positive assets of those clubs, not just one.

Mergers have not been tried out in a correct format before, and should be encouraged to give best options.

Why should mergers be "encouraged"?

Rugby league clubs are individual businesses. Why is it anyone elses problem if two businesses don't want to merge? They live and die by their own business plan.

The examples so far I agree or not Mergers they are takeovers. Effectively, Hull took over Gateshead and bought their assets, as did Huddersfield eventually.

I've said this on another thread but a merger implies two businesses coming together to make a better combined business. That is not the same as two shops next door to each other joining in to one. That only works if they are creating a monopoly in the area so stop the customer going anyhwere else. It's a break even, unless they pool resources and get rid of some people/assets, or even just put the prices up because the customer has no other choice.

Unfortunately in rugby team terms there is a lot of other choice, Sky sports rugby, watching other local sports teams they identify with or not watching at all.....or even watching the new team that is born from the ashes like Sheffield have.

In business terms a merger would work if both side brought something different, like wider loaction. If lets say a big company in Yorkshire merged with a big company in Lancashire they would share resources like distribution, but would gain a wider reach to sell each other products in existing shops. Eg. Mothercare selling Early Learning toys. Saves on ELC trying to buy new shops. Saves Mothercare as their shops are too big for their economoic situation. Good merger (I haven't checked the figures on their profits since though!)

I don't think their will ever be a good merger in the Rugby League Team scenario. They are always going to be Takeovers. One team would lose out. Rugby can only be played on one pitch at a time. Supports won't follow their local rival.
If say Leeds merge with Hunslet, it will just mean Hunslet dying and Leeds might have a nicer training ground.
If Leeds merged with Bradford, one side would eventually keep the stadium and support. The other would drift away or start a rebel team. It wouldn't be a super club because they wouldn't get the theoretical joined support.

Same for all other local rivals.

We might as well create a 10 team league, pool the Sky money into a smaller group and let those that didn't get in just die or survive as a smaller business. If we decided the league on geography so lost Cas at Wakefield's expense, Sts at Wigan's expense, HullKR at Hull's expense, we can then add some teams outside the immediate area and create a wider spread of customers.
Won't work but it sounds good. Why not encourage that?
Can't see so many from Cas, Sts, HullKR voting for that can you?